Council elections - Page 16 - Anything Goes - Other topics not covered elsewhere - Tartan Army Message Board Jump to content

Council elections


Guest flumax

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, andymac said:

1 - The article is 2 years old

2 - Prior to 2007 there were no statements from any parties saying that they would not work with another

3 - In 2007 the Tories werent the austerity driven fvck the poor party that they are now

4 - Prior to the 2017 elections Labour and the SNP both said they would not work with the Tories - or specifically for Labour any party that passes on austerity

5 - Regardless of your "representatives" argument - that was their campaign message and thats what people voted on.

Spin it as much as you want to defend it

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 394
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

1 hour ago, exile said:

Points taken (about representativeness) but on the last one, did you notice that in the council elections, the BBC refused to use the "what the election result was" numbers of seats (which would have shown an SNP increase in seats) but chose to invent some other measure (which showed a reduction in seats) and hence relentless propaganda about SNP on the slide. Maybe just a coincidence that it showed the SNP in a bad light, eh?

 No idea if it was an attempt  at propaganda or a really shite attempt to compare like-for-like. Whatever they were doing their published results are crap.

1 hour ago, exile said:

It'll be interesting to see how the general election results will be reported. given the SNP's 'whipless two'.

If hypothetically the SNP won 55 seats, you could frame that as a loss of one seat or a gain of one seat. What are the bets that the anti-SNP parties will compare this number with "what the election result was", and so record a loss. And what will the BBC use? 

My guess is that they would use words like "a notional gain" (emphasising notional, as if to say, not really) and probably also mention it could also be interpreted as a loss and then use it to re-explain the two whipless cases. And that's all true, of course, but just happens to be not the same way they interpreted the truth for the council elections....

No idea but I would complain if they came out with the same meaningless crap again.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Ally Bongo said:

1 - The article is 2 years old

2 - Prior to 2007 there were no statements from any parties saying that they would not work with another

3 - In 2007 the Tories werent the austerity driven fvck the poor party that they are now

4 - Prior to the 2017 elections Labour and the SNP both said they would not work with the Tories - or specifically for Labour any party that passes on austerity

5 - Regardless of your "representatives" argument - that was their campaign message and thats what people voted on.

Spin it as much as you want to defend it

You don't get the representative bit. You vote for the individual. I get that people think they are voting for a party but they are electing an individual. If that individual ####s off and joins the Monster Raving Loony Party, that individual is still the elected representative. They are elected with the latitude to change their personal position. As I said earlier, principled people would stand down and force a by-election but they can't be forced. They can be suspended from their party and in this case have been.

What people think they are voting for and what they are voting for can be, and often are, different things.

I must live in a different universe from you as in 2007 The Tories weren't a nice cuddly bunch.

I am not spinning anything. The only comment I am making is that some elected people have changed their position. In this case they get suspended from their party. I think they should stand down but they can't be forced. Labour isn't forming a coalition the Conservatives a bunch of suspended Labour members are.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, andymac said:

You don't get the representative bit. You vote for the individual. I get that people think they are voting for a party but they are electing an individual. If that individual ####s off and joins the Monster Raving Loony Party, that individual is still the elected representative. They are elected with the latitude to change their personal position. As I said earlier, principled people would stand down and force a by-election but they can't be forced. They can be suspended from their party and in this case have been.

What people think they are voting for and what they are voting for can be, and often are, different things.

I must live in a different universe from you as in 2007 The Tories weren't a nice cuddly bunch.

I am not spinning anything. The only comment I am making is that some elected people have changed their position. In this case they get suspended from their party. I think they should stand down but they can't be forced. Labour isn't forming a coalition the Conservatives a bunch of suspended Labour members are.

 

You are spinning it though. We are not talking about individuals here but parties taking a group position that is the reverse of what they said they'd do and being dressed up as an informal agreement rather than  a coalition!

Lieing kvnts lying in bed with lieing kvnts!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, slasher said:

You are spinning it though. We are not talking about individuals here but parties taking a group position that is the reverse of what they said they'd do and being dressed up as an informal agreement rather than  a coalition!

Lieing kvnts lying in bed with lieing kvnts!

The only formal coalition got the Labour councillors suspended from their party.

Informal agreements are commonplace and all parties accept them because we would have many non-functional councils without them.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/apr/21/sturgeon-refuses-to-rule-out-snp-coalitions-with-tories-in-local-councils

Edited by andymac
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Have to agree with andymac (dead ringer for Tommy Sheridan by the way) here.

Representative democracy is the best system. It's not perfect, but that's how it is.

Hopefully voters remember this and vote accordingly next time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, andymac said:

You don't get the representative bit. You vote for the individual. I get that people think they are voting for a party but they are electing an individual. If that individual ####s off and joins the Monster Raving Loony Party, that individual is still the elected representative. They are elected with the latitude to change their personal position. As I said earlier, principled people would stand down and force a by-election but they can't be forced. They can be suspended from their party and in this case have been.

 

 

I don't want to be pedantic but under the AMS system in the Holyrood elections you vote for the party and not the individual, at least in the regional list part and given that's the bit that's supposed to add in proportionality that probably the most important bit.

In all elections, I imagine that 90% of the electorate vote for the party before individual. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...
17 hours ago, Toepoke said:

Says he's suffering from ill health, seems a bit harsh to criticise him in those circumstances.

 

Fcuk him. His party don't give a rats erse about anybody suffering from ill health.

Edited by Ormond
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, Squirrelhumper said:

I'm not the one who doesn't want to live in Scotland but moans about folk who do.

Are you on glue? :blink:

When the fcuk have I moaned about about folk who live in Scotland before? Where did this pish come from? You just fancy a dig at me the day again, aye? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, Ormond said:

Fcuk him. His party don't give a rats erse about anybody suffering from ill health.

I know. It is a typical Tory trait - you don't give a feck about the circumstances of others until it impacts on you (and throw direct family in there also). Ruth Davidson made some utterances about the DUP's attitude towards LGBT folks (before of course firmly toeing the party line); telling however to see her initial reaction to a Tory position which adversely impacted on her for once. She is fine with thousands of other poor bastards being adversely impacted by disability or benefit cuts..........

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We are having a by election in our ward. 

Jamie Stone was elected as a councillor in May and then stood for Westminster in June. Didn't have the guts to not stand for council and only for Westminster. Giving himself a fall back option of a council job if he had lost and will instead cost the taxpayer a load of money for a by election for a job he barely did.

Edited by iainmac1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...



×
×
  • Create New...